As a service to my fellow BTW posters, I need to make you aware that I have been given a list of posters that are "off limits" to my comments, questions, and critiques.

At first, the instructions were to focus on the post, not the poster (reasonable enough), but as clarifications were requested and received, it became apparent that *real* orders were to not trifle with the listed posters at all, no matter what they post.

Guess what? I'm OK with that. It's not my forum. I am here as a guest. I just want to know the rules.

I do wholeheartedly believe, however, that the forum rules ought to be known to all, and not held in secret.

The dilemna is that this information was provided to me via private message, so I might be incurring some sort of risk by merely making mention of it.

I will have to stop right here. For further information on this matter, I suggest that you contact Janine.

The idea that everybody out there is free to **** with me, as you do on a regular basis--while at the same time treat others with kid gloves makes me sick.

I remember a couple of years ago when the information on a poster was somehow given to track management for identification and subsequent seizure of stalls. At that point, a couple of members left this forum. And while a couple of self-righteous people may have felt more powerful in their sad little world for being able to cause them to exit, the forum as a whole has suffered, imo.

Hearing this rubs me very wrong. I go out of my way to contribute believing that this is an open forum and if this is true, I feel it severely impacts the value of the forum.

I am relatively sure that what Horse Voice reported is only a portion of the full story.

In the sense that the "full story" -- and the names of the posters that are under the forum Order of Protection -- was divulged in a series of PM's, yes, you are correct about "only a portion"...but I assure you that poster illhorseygal has it right: there are posters here that are "open season" (most everyone, to my knowledge), and there are a few that must be treated with kid gloves. I learned this today.

Contact Janine for the list, and additional clarification if you don't believe that this is, in essence, the full story.

In the sense that the "full story" -- and the names of the posters that are under the forum Order of Protection -- was divulged in a series of PM's, yes, you are correct about "only a portion"...but I assure you that poster illhorseygal has it right: there are posters here that are "open season" (most everyone, to my knowledge), and there are a few that must be treated with kid gloves. I learned this today.

Well now, you see there, it's already a somewhat different story than it originally appeared, most certainly different than it appeared to ilhorseygal.

"A few that [allegedly] must be treated with kid gloves", while everyone else (including most assuredly anyone who has ever taken issue with ms. horseygal) is open season to getting in return as good as they give, or vice versa.

Quote

Contact Janine for the list, and additional clarification if you don't believe that this is, in essence, the full story.

Well all I can say is this whole thing confuses me. I hope I am not on you list of people you can't talk to. Seems we get into it, but we always get out of it in the end. I have never "reported to the moderator."

I did once ask about some threats that were flying when I first got on the forum years ago and there were some people that were downright weird. And even violent sounding. They are all gone.

Well now, you see there, it's already a somewhat different story than it originally appeared, most certainly different than it appeared to ilhorseygal.

"A few that [allegedly] must be treated with kid gloves", while everyone else (including most assuredly anyone who has ever taken issue with ms. horseygal) is open season to getting in return as good as they give, or vice versa.

You are being waaaaay too technical -- it's essentially the same story, with slightly different wording, and even if it isn't, that wasn't your original point of contention.

You said that you were relatively sure that I only reported a portion of the full story. I replied, no, you pretty much have the full story, save for the info (protected poster's names) I thought should stay in the PM's. That's it.

(Just an FYI -- you are not required to put every single BTW post into the "Mass Spectrum Word Cuisinart" for a quantum breakdown of every possible meaning, nuance, and difference. What, do you get 18 hours of sleep a day or something? Where do you get the energy? )

You are being waaaaay too technical -- it's essentially the same story, with slightly different wording, and even if it isn't, that wasn't your original point of contention.

You said that you were relatively sure that I only reported a portion of the full story. I replied, no, you pretty much have the full story, save for the info (protected poster's names) I thought should stay in the PM's. That's it.

And, I still do not believe we do have the full story.

Quote

(Just an FYI -- you are not required to put every single BTW post into the "Mass Spectrum Word Cuisinart" for a quantum breakdown of every possible meaning, nuance, and difference. What, do you get 18 hours of sleep a day or something? Where do you get the energy? )

And it really isn't necessary for you to turn every single exchange of differing views on any and every subject into one of your patented personal attacks on the other posters' character flaws as seen through your own warped window, but you end up doing it every single time anyhow. Which, incidentally, brings us right back to my suspicion that we don't really have the full story on this issue, having only your side of it.

And it really isn't necessary for you to turn every single exchange of differing views on any and every subject into one of your patented personal attacks on the other posters' character flaws as seen through your own warped window, but you end up doing it every single time anyhow. Which, incidentally, brings us right back to my suspicion that we don't really have the full story on this issue, having only your side of it.

Nice try at justifying your butting in (again), but it doesn't follow.

I told the original story -- not you, so if I say that illhorseygal and I are saying essentially the same thing, who in hell are you to refute it?

You don't see your "character flaw" here? How on earth do you know more about the spirit and intent of the author's words than the author himself? Sorry, chief -- a personal attack is the only way to deal with someone with an ever-expanding ego like you.

When Janine tells you that I am telling the full story, let's see if you are man enough to admit that you were wrong.

Nice try at justifying your butting in (again), but it doesn't follow.

I told the original story -- not you, so if I say that illhorseygal and I are saying essentially the same thing, who in hell are you to refute it?

I do have first hand knowledge on the rule about not attacking/mentioning those not here to defend themselves, and besides, this is not your personal soapbox to level (IMHO) unfair and probably mistaken charges again the forum owner without comment.

Quote

You don't see your "character flaw" here?

The character flaw is yours - always derailing the discussions and attacking the imagined character flaws of the other posters, instead of sticking to the subject being discussed. You do it all the time. Whether or not there is any truth to the charge you made against Janine, or whether or not you told the entire story, has absolutely zero to do with your personal opinion of me, or Marcus, or clockerbob, or j-stuff, or even Pamwaggy. You cannot help yourself. There is something wrong with you that you always must personally attack those who dare differ with your opinions in any way, shape, or form.

I honestly do not expect Janine to comment on this little tempest in the teapot, but one can add up the clues and come up with their own reasonable conclusion of what really happened.

First there was the earlier peevish complaint about the deletion of a personal name-calling attack on clockerbob. Then there's this latest "public service announcement" of a supposedly incomprehensible and unfathomable policy that is inconsistent with anything Janine has ever done before. That was fleshed out with revelations that there were off-forum discussions throughout the day that started with "address the topic" and progressed from there. And of course, there's the fact that only one poster on this side seems to have this "hands off list" of people he's not supposed to address.

Conclusion? The picture of things presented in the originating post is an extremely slanted one, or at the very least, incomplete. IMHO.

this is not your personal soapbox to level (IMHO) unfair and probably mistaken charges again the forum owner without comment.

You are SO wrong here, I'm not sure where to start.

I got hit with a couple of rules today of which I previously did not know -- in private messages from Janine. I will abide by those rules.

I decided that I should disclose the existence of these rules to the rest of the forum, while trying to guard the nature and content of the private messages. (Try it some time -- it ain't easy!)

I wanted to warn people that there are certain posters that Janine has declared "off limits" to criticism, and recommended that if the reader felt like he or she needed more information, s/he should contact Janine directly.